Does Disney have to offer DVC perks?

[Ms.Minnie]

At WDW in 2042 BCV, BWV and BRV will go off the availability list. OKW has been extended to 2057. I do not foresee DVC building that many new DVC hotels at WDW, unless they just start taking over more pre-existing hotels, like CCV and VGF2. At least with CCV they are getting a full 50 years of contract, while VGF2 will expire in 2064. More DVC resorts with pre-existing hotels means more people at parks= more crowds. Remember that Reflections was a part DVC and part cash resort. I can’t remember the percentage but there were more cash rooms than DVC. If they keep building new resorts, they will need a new theme park to reduce crowds. The way this management is acting, don’t expect a new park for a long, long time. I cannot believe that they have so many attractions that are shut down, some for many years and do nothing with them. This doesn’t happen at others theme parks. Six Flaggs by us when it closes for the season will tear down an attraction and have a new one built when they open in the spring.

I agree with you 100% about the number of attractions that are shut down and for the length of time they remain closed. Look at the train at MK, which has been down since Dec of 2017. It’s crazy that it's still closed in June 2021, that's 3.5 yrs, way too long IMHO.

I also agree if they build more resorts, I do believe there are 3-5 currently in the works, the need another park. Of course the way Disney does things it will take a VERY long time for that to happen.

I think that Six Flags can put rides up so quickly due to the lack of theming. IMHO their rides do not compare to Disney's rides. Disney IMHO is far superior due to the amount of theming that goes into their rides (at least they used to).

 

[DougEMG]

Passed on the length of our annual visit we definitely need the annual pass. Without the discounted pass i am not sure i see the value in buying multiple 10 day tickets for 1 trip so i would probably look at selling and then just doing short trips to Disneyland when i needed a Disney fix.

 

[sssteele]

There's been a lot of talk about when perks, specifically the AP discount, will be available for blue card members. I'm not saying they shouldn't reinstate the perks, but just wondering if they need to. It really comes down to how much the perks help with sales. Would it change things that much if the sales pitch was limited to being able to use your points at all resorts, including future ones and also being able to use your points on DCL, Adventures by Disney, etc? Those were the big selling points when I was there a few years ago. I don't remember if the AP discount even came up. It's possible I missed it though since I had no intention of buying direct. I just wanted my fast passes and ice cream.

If they came out and said the AP discount was going away once APs were being sold again, there would be a lot of grumbling from current owners, but would it really hurt sales that much in the long run? I'm sure Disney is constantly reviewing the perks to see how much it's costing them and if they think they're worth keeping. Since they won't tell me what they think of the perks, what do you think?

It would drastically affect many members' number of days in the parks if the AP perk were to disappear. As a couple, we would be doing far fewer days in parks if we had to spend over $200 or more per day for entry.

 

[havoc315]

At WDW in 2042 BCV, BWV and BRV will go off the availability list. OKW has been extended to 2057. I do not foresee DVC building that many new DVC hotels at WDW, unless they just start taking over more pre-existing hotels, like CCV and VGF2. At least with CCV they are getting a full 50 years of contract, while VGF2 will expire in 2064. More DVC resorts with pre-existing hotels means more people at parks= more crowds. Remember that Reflections was a part DVC and part cash resort. I can’t remember the percentage but there were more cash rooms than DVC. If they keep building new resorts, they will need a new theme park to reduce crowds. The way this management is acting, don’t expect a new park for a long, long time. I cannot believe that they have so many attractions that are shut down, some for many years and do nothing with them. This doesn’t happen at others theme parks. Six Flaggs by us when it closes for the season will tear down an attraction and have a new one built when they open in the spring.

I said a direct buyer in 2042 would have access to 15-20 resorts.
There are CURRENTLY 15. So assuming the expiring resorts get replaced, then 15 is the minimum.
But the resale buyer will lose BCV, BWV, BRV, HHI, VB. Not totally sure what's going to happen with OKW -- When tons of contracts expire in 2042, are they going to turn around and sell a whole bunch of 15-year-contracts? (Not so easy to sell such short term contracts).

Anyway, 15 is the minimum number of resorts that a direct buyer will likely have access to, when the resorts get replaced in 2042.
But add Disney Tower -- that's 16.

And other than those 16, do we really believe Disney won't add any more DVC resorts in the next 21 years?
Conversion of part of Yacht Club to Yacht Club DVC makes total sense.
Eventually, something will get built on the Reflections site.
By 2042, I can't imagine there would be fewer than 18 DVC resorts. By then, perhaps even more DVC in California, perhaps even international DVC or more domestic non-theme park DVC.

And you can build more DVC at WDW without adding parks. Adding 200-500 DVC units, basically 500-1,000 guests, does not suddenly create the need for a 5th gate.
It's not even necessarily an addition of 500-1,000 guests: Some of that may be conversion of current resort space to DVC. They tore down CBR rooms to build RIviera. They tore down the Garden building of Contemporary to build BLT.
So now, building more DVC does not suddenly bring a massive flood of people creating a need for more parks.

 

[bakerworld]

Re-sale will save you $$ but what is your time worth? Sweat Equity versus Expediency.

I guess we're lazy and short on patience but handing over a check to receive my DVC points the same day seems like enough of a perk to me to offset any discounted ticket, dinner, or service. JMO. CAVEAT: we've never bought a LARGE contract so our resale 'savings' would've been minimal and every contract has been the 'last one'.

 

[davidl81]

This. A Disney timeshare sucks you into the ecosystem. On our first AP, our 1-2 trips/year family became a 4 trips in a single year one. An easy choice given the “free” park entry AND accommodations. We did paid late night parties, paid early entry events, massage services, none of which we had done before.

I’m checking out of Aulani today and while I thoroughly enjoyed my time here this week, there is little chance I would’ve stayed here without ownership into Disney’s timeshare or the actual per night rate we paid for our 2BR. And I certainly wouldn’t have forked over for three adults and a child to attend a Disney Luau.

The Disney timeshare halo effect is financial boon for the mothership, marketing costs for perks notwithstanding.


Except it’s not a timeshare, it’s “vacation club,” and people aren’t forking over five figures, they’re paying a monthly bill of $350/month to give their families a “lifetime of memories.”

The vast majority of points that Disney acquires is by way of foreclosure when people surrender their 1-3 year old contracts, realizing they bit off a little more magic than they can chew. It’s a testament to both the marketing magic of The Walt Disney Company, and the reliable appetite for people to buy things they really can’t afford.

Everything you just said is so spot on and so like our family. With APs and DVC we got to WDW way more than we would without it. And while we are spending money on tickets, we will spend all of the money on meals, wine etc.

 

[Bjaiken77]

Everything you just said is so spot on and so like our family. With APs and DVC we got to WDW way more than we would without it. And while we are spending money on tickets, we will spend all of the money on meals, wine etc.

This is why I think Disney needs to look out for DVC members. It’s like, I’m already spending a ton of money, and I will end up spending a ton more at the resort and in the parks. And I’m fine with it. But can you just throw me the occasional bone by looking out for me? Maybe a little something more than a discounted room?

 

[achinforsomebacon]

Disney likely makes money by giving DVC members the discounted pass. There are 2 competing revenue factors:

1 -- People who would visit the exact same number of days whether they had a discounted pass or not. By giving these people a discounted pass, Disney loses revenue
2 -- People who visit MORE often, because of the discounted pass. From these people, Disney makes a TON of additional money. These people end up buying more points to stay more often. They spend on dining and entertainment while they are on property. They bring cash-paying friends and family. Even if Disney isn't making extra ticket purchase money from these people, they are making extra profit in lots of other ways.

In all likelihood, factor-2 outweighs factor-1. Offering targeted discounts ultimately brings in MORE revenue than is lost by the "discount." This is very much the science behind the Disney Dining Plan -- They don't lose a penny by offering the plan, it ultimately increases their revenue and profit significantly.
For the AP discounts, the way they further discount a "renewal" is designed so you don't let your AP lapse. Encourage you to visit every year, instead of skipping a year.

2 may outweigh 1 on an individual person basis, but maybe not in the aggregate. While you're more likely to go more often with an AP, you might not spend the same every time. For example, if you go 4 times in a year, maybe you don't go crazy with the dining and character meals and souvenirs, etc. I'm sure Disney would prefer that every guest is taking a "once in a lifetime" trip and goes all out. People who go all the time don't give them nearly the same profit margin as people buying x day park tickets and really doing it up when they're at the parks. And if Disney runs close to capacity, those people who aren't going because they don't have an AP will just be replaced with other guests.

 

[havoc315]

While having an AP would get you in the

2 may outweigh 1 on an individual person basis, but maybe not in the aggregate. While you're more likely to go more often with an AP, you might not spend the same every time. For example, if you go 4 times in a year, maybe you don't go crazy with the dining and character meals and souvenirs, etc. I'm sure Disney would prefer that every guest is taking a "once in a lifetime" trip and goes all out. People who go all the time don't give them nearly the same profit margin as people buying x day park tickets and really doing it up when they're at the parks. And if Disney runs close to capacity, those people who aren't going because they don't have an AP will just be replaced with other guests.

That’s only true if they are running constantly at capacity, where they can give your spot to another person.

But they rarely run at capacity. The big DVC pass discount is the ability to buy the Gold Pass — which blocks out Easter and Christmas, the only 2 weeks of the year where they are at capacity.

 

[Bing Showei]

This is why I think Disney needs to look out for DVC members. It’s like, I’m already spending a ton of money, and I will end up spending a ton more at the resort and in the parks.

I understand your frustration (especially around the Gold APs), but the reality is if Disney turned off the perks tomorrow, most owners would continue to go to the theme parks. Many would continue to buy souvenirs and pay for up-charge events. The vast majority would still keep their ownership. And most importantly, the timeshares would continue to sell.

The ton of money we spent when buying in is theirs at this point and we’ll pay the dues on those points to keep Disney’s timeshares open and the lights on. After 10 days pass from signing on the Mickey heads, we are on the hook to run those resorts every year for the next 20-49 years.

If we feel like we’re getting the shaft, we’ll still have to pay those dues. If we feel so shafted that we sell, even better; now they won’t have to give the new owner any perks at all, and those same dues will still be paid year after year.

The restrictions on resold contracts have created a distinctive enough product from retail that if fully realized in 20 years, Direct will be a product that will sell itself without the aid of any perks at all. The success of Riviera (as much as I hate the restrictions, I’m under no illusion that Riviera has been a failure), has only reinforced that Disney could take away everything but the the ability to get a discounted room at a potential future resort, and the lines will continue forming around the block.

 

[Bjaiken77]

I understand your frustration (especially around the Gold APs), but the reality is if Disney turned off the perks tomorrow, most owners would continue to go to the theme parks. Many would continue to buy souvenirs and pay for up-charge events. The vast majority would still keep their ownership. And most importantly, the timeshares would continue to sell.

The ton of money we spent when buying in is theirs at this point and we’ll pay the dues on those points to keep Disney’s timeshares open and the lights on. After 10 days pass from signing on the Mickey heads, we are on the hook to run those resorts every year for the next 20-49 years.

If we feel like we’re getting the shaft, we’ll still have to pay those dues. If we feel so shafted that we sell, even better; now they won’t have to give the new owner any perks at all, and those same dues will still be paid year after year.

The restrictions on resold contracts have created a distinctive enough product from retail that if fully realized in 20 years, Direct will be a product that will sell itself without the aid of any perks at all. The success of Riviera (as much as I hate the restrictions, I’m under no illusion that Riviera has been a failure), has only reinforced that Disney could take away everything but the the ability to get a discounted room at a potential future resort, and the lines will continue forming around the block.

I’ve had this conversation many times. I just don’t subscribe to the business philosophy that there is so much more they can take away before people will stop coming. Disney was built on providing the ultimate transformative experience. I expect that to remain in their business model and them not to consider the minimum they can get away with. Trust me - I understand others disagree or have a different perspective on the reality of the situation. I’ve heard it over and over on here.

 

[sssteele]

I understand your frustration (especially around the Gold APs), but the reality is if Disney turned off the perks tomorrow, most owners would continue to go to the theme parks. Many would continue to buy souvenirs and pay for up-charge events. The vast majority would still keep their ownership. And most importantly, the timeshares would continue to sell.

The ton of money we spent when buying in is theirs at this point and we’ll pay the dues on those points to keep Disney’s timeshares open and the lights on. After 10 days pass from signing on the Mickey heads, we are on the hook to run those resorts every year for the next 20-49 years.

If we feel like we’re getting the shaft, we’ll still have to pay those dues. If we feel so shafted that we sell, even better; now they won’t have to give the new owner any perks at all, and those same dues will still be paid year after year.

The restrictions on resold contracts have created a distinctive enough product from retail that if fully realized in 20 years, Direct will be a product that will sell itself without the aid of any perks at all. The success of Riviera (as much as I hate the restrictions, I’m under no illusion that Riviera has been a failure), has only reinforced that Disney could take away everything but the the ability to get a discounted room at a potential future resort, and the lines will continue forming around the block.

We need a poll to get some data on whether discounted APs or lack thereof would affect DVC owners willingness to go into parks. My wife and I would drastically reduce park attendance if we had to pay $200 plus per day. We currently go into the parks 25 to 30 days a year. $5000 - $6000 per year is not a spending choice We would make. (and admission prices will continue to skyrocket)

 

[Bing Showei]

I just don’t subscribe to the business philosophy that there is so much more they can take away before people will stop coming.

You don’t need to believe it’s a good business model to believe that “trimming the fat” is what is slowly happening. I personally think it’s a terribly short-sighted way to treat a brand-loyal consumer who has demonstrated a propensity to proselytize the virtues of the company and their ability to deliver on the transformative experiences. But doing exactly that only underscores the “next-quarter metrics” driven philosophy that often motivates those in management who live or die by the profits/losses every three months.

Regardless of your perspective of the practice, it requires a good deal of suspension of disbelief to ignore the fact that every step taken by Disney to differentiate their retail product from the resale alternative is anything less than a pronouncement of the “Disney first” policy. The latest resale restrictions being just the most egregious (and admittedly most effective) step.

I have yet to hear a single, logical reason from anyone, including sales guides, about how the resale restrictions are a benefit for owners. Those resale restrictions were designed with one singular purpose: sell more retail product. That’s it. It has zero benefit to the owner. The hedge being that most owners won’t know about the change, understand the change, or care about the change.

VB
HHI
BWV
VWL
BCV
SSR

All resorts that sold (and some sold out) during the period from 1995 to 2005 when there were zero annual pass benefits to speak of.

Some time leading up to 2019, Disney came to realize that the biggest selling point for their timeshare is access to the entirety of the system and so the latest iteration of resale restrictions were borne.

Looking at SAP resorts’ continued success on the resale market (presumably on the strength of trading into the O14 resorts) the resale restrictions got it right.

Disney has demonstrated historically an ability to easily sell their timeshare with few substantive benefits to offer. Every Disney timeshare property, and a third of Riviera is bought and paid for for the life of the resort. Think about that. Every dues paying owner, direct or resale, affords Disney an opportunity to generate revenue (whether by way of breakage income, lock off premiums, or services paid to itself). The product sells with no ”perks” at all (resale) on the strength of the resort properties and the existence of the parks.

If the resale restrictions and continued success of the resale market have proven anything, it’s that Disney continues to leave money on the table which is antithetical to the mission suggested by those same restrictions.

 

[RoseGold]

The restrictions on resold contracts have created a distinctive enough product from retail that if fully realized in 20 years, Direct will be a product that will sell itself without the aid of any perks at all.

I agree, it can sell. But for how long? Sure, those DVC kiosks and ice cream machine are there for a reason, and it isn't buyers around here with pivot tables who understand the resale restrictions. That said, historically, buying DVC was an easy mistake to undo. It went up a little, hopefully enough to offset your costs. If you held long enough, maybe you even made a little money, mathematically. So you bit off too much magic, no big deal, it's undone!

Maybe the resale restrictions will do what they were designed to do, and dry up demand for the third class of resale buyer. The new resorts could be the first time in the history of the system where owners really lose money. These stories are common in other timeshares, and probably why everyone here knows you just say no to a sleazy timeshare. Buyers who feel cheated are rare in DVC, and that has worked well for the brand. If the resale restrictions change that, some angry buyers could change the whole perception of the brand.

I haven't seen them yet, but I can imagine those loud, disgruntled people. It makes sense as DVC slides into the tactics other timeshares are using.

 

[sethschroeder]

Very easy concept every person who limits park time is lost revenue for Disney and in another 6-12 months they would have capacity to that person but that person would not be there.

For every person who sells their contract that is lost potential for direct sales. Why? Every time someone sells it impacts supply/demand slowly eroding pricing of resale. Long term that win to a lower price means people buy resale instead of direct. Additionally there is not unlimited DVC owners so slowly but surely it gets a little more difficult to sell DVC without changing the model especially as the total cost goes up.

 

[Bing Showei]

Very easy concept every person who limits park time is lost revenue for Disney and in another 6-12 months they would have capacity to that person but that person would not be there.

What is that lost attendance as a percentage of park attendance? What percentage of Disney timeshare owners would drastically reduce their attendance? How will that reduction pace against people who bite the bullet and pay for annual passes anyway? How does the revenue from per/day ticket sales weigh against revenue from APs less the discount? Given behaviors of those who still choose to attend, whether by ticket sales or annual pass, how much loss in dining or merchandise revenue is actually realized? How many owners will adjust their touring habits by trying to do more in fewer days? Is the math really as straightforward as a family going 6 days instead of 18 days spending 1/3rd on on meals, merchandise, experiences?

Sure, it’s a very easy concept to draw conclusions on if you take a very simplistic view of revenue on the basis of number of days visited. I suspect it’s not as straightforward as that and that if forced to do 8 days instead of 12, most Disney fans who love the magic so much as to commit to buying 50 years of it would just try to be more efficient each day.

Those who choose to will just decide to pony up for whatever the new front-of-line add-on option there will be, pay for parties, etc. Disney timeshare owners are such a small small percentage of park goers; losing the few who actually choose to go less would be even less significant. Believing otherwise would likely require an overinflated sense of representation of Disney timeshare ownership as a percentage of park attendance.

 

[mustinjourney]

Disney likely makes money by giving DVC members the discounted pass. There are 2 competing revenue factors:

1 -- People who would visit the exact same number of days whether they had a discounted pass or not. By giving these people a discounted pass, Disney loses revenue
2 -- People who visit MORE often, because of the discounted pass. From these people, Disney makes a TON of additional money. These people end up buying more points to stay more often. They spend on dining and entertainment while they are on property. They bring cash-paying friends and family. Even if Disney isn't making extra ticket purchase money from these people, they are making extra profit in lots of other ways.

In all likelihood, factor-2 outweighs factor-1. Offering targeted discounts ultimately brings in MORE revenue than is lost by the "discount." This is very much the science behind the Disney Dining Plan -- They don't lose a penny by offering the plan, it ultimately increases their revenue and profit significantly.
For the AP discounts, the way they further discount a "renewal" is designed so you don't let your AP lapse. Encourage you to visit every year, instead of skipping a year.

I am exactly point #2. If there is no AP discount -- I'm only going once a year or maybe two times every three or four years.

As it stood in 2016 -- I didn't have grandfathered resale points -- so I ended up buying 25 points direct at BCV for $165 (back when resale was $90ish).

Once I got that -- I added APs, which is basically crack.

I started adding in a second trip each year -- and also added a third trip during F&W for me and DW.

And then I realized 25 points alone at BCV didn't do much for me -- so I bought another 25 points a year later at $185 a point direct. And of course -- I then bought another resale VGF contract so we didn't have to borrow.

I have also purchased one time use points for $19 a point from disney at least two times.

And finally -- I added enough RIV for a week in a studio. So now I have enough points for two weeks in VGF studio, a week in RIV studio, and 3 nights in BCV studio for F&W.

Needless to say -- getting access to the cheaper gold pass opened the door for spending another $55k just on DVC contracts. Granted -- not all of that went to Disney since about $16k was a resale contract -- but that doesn't even account for all of the drinks/food/souvenirs I've purchased on each trip.

 

[mustinjourney]

We would probably become sellers instead of buyers if the AP doesn't come back or something comparable. We are planning on buying direct at DLT. That or turn our points into rentals until it does. Doesn't make financial sense to go there as much if we don't have em.

this is where I am at as well.

Not going to lie -- it makes me a little sad. The FOMO on potential memories while my kids are still young.

 

[mustinjourney]

Passed on the length of our annual visit we definitely need the annual pass. Without the discounted pass i am not sure i see the value in buying multiple 10 day tickets for 1 trip so i would probably look at selling and then just doing short trips to Disneyland when i needed a Disney fix.

not a bad idea to switch to DL. Especially with magical express going away in WDW.

 

[mustinjourney]

2 may outweigh 1 on an individual person basis, but maybe not in the aggregate. While you're more likely to go more often with an AP, you might not spend the same every time. For example, if you go 4 times in a year, maybe you don't go crazy with the dining and character meals and souvenirs, etc. I'm sure Disney would prefer that every guest is taking a "once in a lifetime" trip and goes all out. People who go all the time don't give them nearly the same profit margin as people buying x day park tickets and really doing it up when they're at the parks. And if Disney runs close to capacity, those people who aren't going because they don't have an AP will just be replaced with other guests.

this is also very true -- my spending per person per day is definitely less now than it was when we took our original cash stay trip that was supposed to be a once every 4 year trip.

Of course -- now that we're only DVC -- we only spend about 4-5 hours per day in a park. The rest is at the pool, putt putt, golf course, spa, etc...

So while we don't spend as much money in the parks...we certainly do spend it on other disney related activities...and since we're not in the parks during the middle of the day -- we don't really contribute to the crazy crowding.